Re: BBC 'Learning the Lessons of the Kelly Affair

I do not wish to discuss Dr. David Kelly's actions, they were his own affair
and if Baha'is wish to have opinions on them that is their own matter.
Anybody who spoke of his character obviously spoke from their knowledge and
experience of him and your Andrew Gilligan quote confirms that he was known
as a man of integrity. However, both the 27th July (misquoted by me as
August) and 1st August articles below show that the Telegraph were told by
Roger Kingdon that the comments took place outside of the public (ie with
guests) forum. Mentioning the question and answer session is not relevant
because if Roger Kingdon has confirmed that the comments were not in front
of everybody else then that part of the event becomes as irrelevant as the
refreshments that were no doubt served and the one or more prayers that no
doubt started the meeting, neither of which were referred to in the
newspaper articles. By mentioning the question and answer session and
continuing by quoting Roger Kingdon on comments made 'at that meeting',
while keeping the fact that the comment was private and not in front of the
guests, the Guardian was able to make the story sound much more sensational
than it was and presumably make more sales. Only below can you see a quote
where Roger Kingdon states whether the comment was part of the meeting or
not and he says it was not, therefore there are no contradictions. There
were other similar instances to this, one popular paper had an exclusive
that Dr. David Kelly might have committed suicide because the Baha'i Faith
promoted it, again the truth of the Baha'i view on suicide appeared in other
papers over the following days.

Regards, h.

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Harold Jones at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 3/12/03 1:47 am:
>
> > The Daily Telegraph on the 1st August:
> >
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/01/nkell01.xml
> >
> >
> > Roger Kingdon, a fellow member of the Baha'i group in Abingdon,
> > Oxfordshire, attended by Dr Kelly, said: "I will remember him as a
> > person of tremendous integrity and self containment."
>
> Well Dr Kelly did *not* show this side of his "tremendous integrity
> and self containment" at the government select committe? Why did Dr
> Kelly  not tell them what he told Rodger Kington that he was  not so
> happy with how the material ( september intelligence dossier) had been
> interpreted." Instead Dr Kelly used equivocal language with intent to
> deceive the select committe that he not discussed the dossier with BBC
> journalist Andrew Gilligan. "Lying was not easy for Dr Kelly, who was
> regarded by all who knew him as a man of integrity with a scientist's
> regard for accuracy and the truth".
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/01/nkell01.xml
> But the tape of a telephone conversation by him and Susan Watts
> (another BBC journalist) was the smoking gun to prove Dr Kelly had
> told lies. Two days later he committed suicide. This proves the
> nonsense some Baha'is seem to think that a good Bahai like Dr Kelly
> cant tell a lie is a load of tosh.
> >
> > Dr Kelly, he said, had given a talk to the group about his experiences
> > as a weapons inspector in Iraq in October last year, after the dossier
> > had been published.
> >
> > Mr Kingdon said: "He had no doubt that they [the Iraqis] had biological
> > and chemical weapons. He didn't comment on that while everyone else
> > was there, but separately I asked him - because the dossier had just
come
> > out.
> >
> > "He said he had been sitting with Jack Straw when the dossier was
released
> > to
> > the public. It was clear that David Kelly was largely happy with the
> > material in
> > the dossier, but he was not so happy with how the material had been
> > interpreted."
>
> So the question-and-answer session on the *intelligence dossier* has
> been excluded in this later " Telegraph" article?  You would agree
> usually a question-and-answer session is centered around  what is
> discussed in a talk?
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1006711,00.html
> If the Observer were not told by Rodger Kington that (a
> question-and-answer session on the *intelligence dossier*) happened,
> why would a journalist include such an inportant piece of information
> if it was an untruth?
>
> " Kelly gave a 40-minute talk, which was accompanied with a slide
> show, about his work as a weapons inspector in Iraq. He ended with a
> question-and-answer session on the intelligence dossier, which had
> been made public 10 days earlier as part of what opponents claim was a
> government attempt to swing public opinion behind war on Iraq.
>
> Roger Kingdon told The Observer last night that Kelly expressed his
> unhappiness with how the document was being interpreted, saying the
> intelligence information supplied was accurate, but indicating that he
> was uncomfortable about how it was being represented".
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1006711,00.html
>
> Surely if this had have happened to me I would be on to the newspaper
> like a shot and request they print a disclaimer that I never told the
> journalist this. Why did Rodger Kington not do so?  I am sure you
> would agree telling another newspaper the same story (but deleting the
> Q & A bit on the dossier) story is not the same as a
> disclaimer?..............Errol
>
> >
> > see also the same paper on the 27th August:
> >
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/07/27/uhain.xml
> >
> >
> > "...he had discussed the issue with Roger Kingdon, a fellow member of
the
> > Baha'i
> > faith, following a meeting of believers in Mr Kingdon's home..."
> >
> >
> > Regards, harold.
> >
> >